@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:Jeez, how dense can you guys be?
Just b/c there's a plausible explanation for something does not make that explanation the truth at all. This is exactly like much of the quasi-racist **** I saw while growing up.... just bad enough to be offensive, but the cowards leave themselves an out so that when they are criticized, the right-wing can still jump to defend them.
As you know, there are two plausible explanations: (1) the cartoonist was simply using a popular news story to make a comment that the Stimulus Bill might as well have been written by a chimp, and was not attempting to depict President Obama as a chimp, and (2) the cartoonist was attempting to depict Obama as a chimp.
One of these is more plausible than the other.
Since Obama did not write the Stimulus Bill, it wasn't even his idea, and the chimp was not wearing a label with the name "Obama," or even drawn in such a way to resemble Obama, it seems logical that the artist was not referring to Obama. The only basis to claim he intended the chimp to represent Obama is the fact that Obama happens to be the President. (Oh, and the fact that the cartoon happens to have appeared in a right-leaning newspaper. Had it appeared in The Nation, we wouldn't be having this discussion.)
It's interesting that you would characterize those following the more logical and plausible view as "dense."